View Full Version : Amendment 64...
So I got the 2012 State ballot information booklet in the mail the other day and reading through it I just cannot grasp how dense people are. What am I talking about? Amendment 64: Use and Regulation of Marijuana.
Colorado Amendment 64 is an amendment to the Article 18 of the Colorado state constitution. Section 3 would allow the "personal use and regulation of marijuana" for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.
This would effectively make it legal to purchase pot for adults 21+, no medical card needed- it would be just like alcohol. But the main problem with this is:
Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and is deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no legitimate medical uses. As such, it prohibits the possession, usage, purchase, sale, and/or cultivation of marijuana.
So they would make it legal in CO but it is still a federal Schedule I drug and it is still illegal on a federal level. Thus, this would be bad for businesses that decide to do so because it would open the door for the big bad feds to come in and prosecute.
How do you all feel about this? Personally, I can go either way, but overall I'm annoyed by all this obsession with marijuana- I see it all the time, I hear people talk about it all the time... if they just made it legal on a federal level I wonder if people would just STFU already about it.
Well, medical pot is currently in the same legal status with the feds....
If you want to smoke pot, you're going to smoke pot. The real problem is how much of our resources (read: tax dollars) are being used to fight the 'war on drugs'. How many people are we giving 3 hots and a cot to, for years, over a plant?
Well, medical pot is currently in the same legal status with the feds....
If you want to smoke pot, you're going to smoke pot. The real problem is how much of our resources (read: tax dollars) are being used to fight the 'war on drugs'. How many people are we giving 3 hots and a cot to, for years, over a plant?
True- and the proponents for ending cannabis prohibition cite that it would incur an excise tax that could potentially generate massive amounts of revenue.
I feel the same way about pot (all drugs really), as I do about "warning labels", if that tells you anything. Let those who want to use them, die off, and the general population will be better for it. Call me crazy.
True- and the proponents for ending cannabis prohibition cite that it would incur an excise tax that could potentially generate massive amounts of revenue.
Think about how much revenue is generated via tobacco.
The feds charge $1.01 PER PACK in taxes, on top of what Colorado charges.
ETA: Colorado tax per pack of cigarettes is 84 cents. So $1.85 total.
It didn't fly in Cali, it's not going to fly here.
Having volunteered to counsel adolescents getting out of jail the last ten years or so IMHO the drug can be devastating to children. For some adults its a terrible addiction that robs their potential.
Even with these facts I think legalization clearly outweighs continued criminalization. Legalization removes the forbidden fruit motive for use. Legalization hurts the criminal cartels bad. Legalization allows us to use our precious criminal justice resources for violent offenders. Legalization stops the conversion of those who screwed up selling drugs into violent criminals via incarceration. Its effectivly legal in Colorado right now and I dont see spiky hair mutants roaming the streets ( well maybe at the boulder mall[Tooth])
Forum members who might be tempted to use marijuana by Colorado's quasi legal status should be reminded that federal law prohibits marijuana users from possessing firearms. If the addiction potential of the drug doesnt keep you from using it, potential loss of the right to own firearms should be considered. I wouldnt trade my right to own firearms for a semi of the stuff.
Zundfolge
09-26-2012, 12:02
I will vote against Amendment 64.
Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
THEN states can pass laws allowing it.
Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.
Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.
Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.
* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.
Once, when we had a more polite society with personal responsbility, all form of things were criminalized that are now common. American society is heading in a scary direction. IMHO, legalization of pot will result in the proliferation of more designer drugs (Bath Salts, Smiles, etc.) by the criminal element, reduce our collective ability to produce and innovate and result in a higher percentage of people on the government dole. These will create increased burdens on those who try to live responsibly and earn their own way.
What is your reason to think that legal pot will drive designer drug production? And, what will be the difference between the designer drugs now, and in the future?
The main issue I have is that it is illegal on a federal level- so if this passes and businesses are allowed to sell it doesn't that open the door to hurt our businesses during a time when we need business to boom? xring, you make a great point, even if it were legal federally and here, I still wouldn't use it- BTDT, didn't like what it does to me. I'll stay mostly opposed to legalization until they can figure out a way to prove someone's level of MJ-induced intoxication while driving and be able to punish much like with drinking and driving.
Teufelhund
09-26-2012, 12:55
Meh. I think this is just picking out one facet of the larger issue, which is the war on personal freedom. It is not the duty or right of any government body to mandate what a person can or cannot do to their own self.
Aside from that, the federal government is acting outside its authority by issuing and enforcing such laws on individual States. It is the (much ignored) responsibility of local LE to interdict when federal agencies overstep their jurisdiction. There is an organization of Sheriffs from across the country which meets in Vegas every year to demand such action and assumption of responsibility.
ChadAmberg
09-26-2012, 14:27
I will vote against Amendment 64.
Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
THEN states can pass laws allowing it.
Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.
Actually my thought is this: Why do any states need any laws about it? If it's illegal at the federal level, isn't it a bit redundant to have it at the state level? Why not ban it at the county, city, and HOA level too then? This is the cause of so much confusion about MMJ and everything else. People think its perfectly legal because the state allows it then cry foul when the feds roll in.
Anyway, most of the time, laws should never be passed to allow something, only a very narrow prohibition of certain things.
Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.
I think California and Alaska at least have done this... but CA was infected already. You're right though, it will just hippify the state more.
Rust_shackleford
09-26-2012, 15:53
I will vote against Amendment 64.
Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
THEN states can pass laws allowing it.
Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.
Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.
Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.
* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.
READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Also the Federal Government has only
18 powers enumerated!
Time to get our states back. Over 50% of land in our state is owned by the Feds.
Rust_shackleford
09-26-2012, 15:54
Meh. I think this is just picking out one facet of the larger issue, which is the war on personal freedom. It is not the duty or right of any government body to mandate what a person can or cannot do to their own self.
Aside from that, the federal government is acting outside its authority by issuing and enforcing such laws on individual States. It is the (much ignored) responsibility of local LE to interdict when federal agencies overstep their jurisdiction. There is an organization of Sheriffs from across the country which meets in Vegas every year to demand such action and assumption of responsibility.
Here Here!
READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Also the Federal Government has only
18 powers enumerated!
Time to get our states back. Over 50% of land in our state is owned by the Feds.
I agree with your sentiment, but actually the Fed owns 36.2% of CO. It's way too high, but not "over 50%".
Once, when we had a more polite society with personal responsbility, all form of things were criminalized that are now common. American society is heading in a scary direction. IMHO, legalization of pot will result in the proliferation of more designer drugs (Bath Salts, Smiles, etc.) by the criminal element, reduce our collective ability to produce and innovate and result in a higher percentage of people on the government dole. These will create increased burdens on those who try to live responsibly and earn their own way.
One flaw with your statement: Marijuana was not illegal until 1937 in the US. The main reason it was made illegal was that it was lumped in with hemp when the paper industry saw hemp as a threat. Regulation started in the 1860s, but the outright ban didn't come until much later.
Rust_shackleford
09-26-2012, 16:40
I agree with your sentiment, but actually the Fed owns 36.6% of CO. It's way too high, but not "over 50%".
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/printableViewer.htm?imgF=images/preview/fedlands/CO.gif&imgW=588&imgH=450
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/printableViewer.htm?imgF=images/preview/fedlands/CO.gif&imgW=588&imgH=450
Yep, while that map is 100% accurate, the white space in between all those colors actually does add up to quite a bit.
See page 4 of this PDF from the Congressional Research Service in February. It breaks down all the states.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
One flaw with your statement: Marijuana was not illegal until 1937 in the US. The main reason it was made illegal was that it was lumped in with hemp when the paper industry saw hemp as a threat. Regulation started in the 1860s, but the outright ban didn't come until much later.
No flaw, just not stated well. Point is, from the 1900s through the 1960s, our legislatures tried to legislate morality by criminalization of a lot of things. Did not work then...does not work now. Now we are trying to enfold a lot of things through laws that may or may not belong at all. It is just a pendulum swing.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
Last year or the year before Montana passed a law that exempts it from NFA regulations, as long as the items are manufactured and sold within the state.
That provides a precedent for marijuana, since it's all manufactured, bought and consumed within the state.
What is your reason to think that legal pot will drive designer drug production? And, what will be the difference between the designer drugs now, and in the future?
When the profitabilty of pot is decreased, the same people will very likely move on to other drugs with a higher potential for profit. Legalization is not going to all of a sudden make drug dealers a beneficial element of society. With the proliferation of designer drugs in the recent years, and the shipment of bulk chemicals from other countries for that purpose, there is a wider and simpler path to cash for drug dealers with designer drugs, which have become much more toxic and powerful in just the last few years.
So what is the difference between fighting the war on drugs against some new drug, and the drugs we have now? I see where you are thinking, but that is essentially saying that criminals will be criminals no matter what, so it doesn't matter that we have made things illegal that shouldn't be, because well, something has to be illegal.
When the profitabilty of pot is decreased, the same people will very likely move on to other drugs with a higher potential for profit. Legalization is not going to all of a sudden make drug dealers a beneficial element of society. With the proliferation of designer drugs in the recent years, and the shipment of bulk chemicals from other countries for that purpose, there is a wider and simpler path to cash for drug dealers with designer drugs, which have become much more toxic and powerful in just the last few years.
As I have stated earlier I believe marijuana to be a powerful drug with significant addiction risk. Marijuana is the drug of choice for about 8 out of 10 illicit drug users. It is my opinion that if marijuana was to be legalized a large percentage of users would be content with use of only legal drugs, just like many citizens are content to use only alcohol now. In my opinion there would be limited demand for the illegal "powerful, toxic designer drugs" you describe. Are 80% of illicit drug users going to abandon their drug of choice once it becomes legal and seek out illegal "powerful toxic designer drugs"? What I believe will happen if marijuana becomes legal is the majority of illicit marijuana users will have a strong incentive to use the only two legal drugs,marijuana and alcohol, shun criminal activities, and be overjoyed that they are no longer a criminal.
1;Its their drug of choice to begin with
2;They would not have to associate with the scumbag criminals to obtain it.
3;They would not face the risk of criminal prosecution .
The motivation is exactly the same that keeps the majority of citizens using the one legal drug available now, alcohol. In my opinion illicit drug use would strongly decline with the legalization of marijuana and the power and profits of the cartels along with it. The real question in my mind is whether legalization of marijuana and its subsequent addiction problems is worth the benefits of decriminalization of marijuana users. Imho the answer is overwhelminly yes, despite my distaste for potheads, or drunks for that matter.
So what is the difference between fighting the war on drugs against some new drug, and the drugs we have now? I see where you are thinking, but that is essentially saying that criminals will be criminals no matter what, so it doesn't matter that we have made things illegal that shouldn't be, because well, something has to be illegal.
Kind of, but not really. The drug culture was created long before any of us were born, however the need for politicians to legislate morality, at least in this arena, ended up creating a monster instead of protecting the citizens. It was inevitable, and it won't go away.
As I have stated earlier I believe marijuana to be a powerful drug with significant addiction risk. Marijuana is the drug of choice for about 8 out of 10 illicit drug users. It is my opinion that if marijuana was to be legalized a large percentage of users would be content with use of only legal drugs, just like many citizens are content to use only alcohol now. In my opinion there would be limited demand for the illegal "powerful, toxic designer drugs" you describe. Are 80% of illicit drug users going to abandon their drug of choice once it becomes legal and seek out illegal "powerful toxic designer drugs"? What I believe will happen if marijuana becomes legal is the majority of illicit marijuana users will have a strong incentive to use the only two legal drugs,marijuana and alcohol, shun criminal activities, and be overjoyed that they are no longer a criminal.
1;Its their drug of choice to begin with
2;They would not have to associate with the scumbag criminals to obtain it.
3;They would not face the risk of criminal prosecution .
The motivation is exactly the same that keeps the majority of citizens using the one legal drug available now, alcohol. In my opinion illicit drug use would strongly decline with the legalization of marijuana and the power and profits of the cartels along with it. The real question in my mind is whether legalization of marijuana and its subsequent addiction problems is worth the benefits of decriminalization of marijuana users. Imho the answer is overwhelminly yes, despite my distaste for potheads, or drunks for that matter.
So I take it you don't have kids...
For many, the "forbidden" IS the drive. Legalization, in total, probably won't change the total use, but it will likely change the demographics. The number of people who "start" using pot under the age of 18 is staggering, and significantly higher than alcohol, so there may be some merit there.
However, the one thing we have all left out of this discussion is the "why". A kid does not take a drink or a hit to "escape" the first time, it is usually peer pressure. Continued use of drugs, for most, is the escape from reality, a reality that is not attractive. The greater the social decline, the more drugs will be desired, used and controlling of our society. If parents would spend more time with their kids instead of chasing the drug of money and consumerism, maybe drug use could be curtailed. A person who respects others and treats them with dignity does not desire nor pursue recreational drug use, legal or otherwise, because that person values others and their future.
Teufelhund
09-26-2012, 21:16
I can't stop shaking my head while reading the posts in here. You sound like liberals discussing why civilians shouldn't be allowed to own assault rifles.
However, the one thing we have all left out of this discussion is the "why". A kid does not take a drink or a hit to "escape" the first time, it is usually peer pressure. Continued use of drugs, for most, is the escape from reality, a reality that is not attractive. The greater the social decline, the more drugs will be desired, used and controlling of our society. If parents would spend more time with their kids instead of chasing the drug of money and consumerism, maybe drug use could be curtailed. A person who respects others and treats them with dignity does not desire nor pursue recreational drug use, legal or otherwise, because that person values others and their future.
Your responses are confusing and contradictory. I can't tell if you are for legalization, or against.
What I have quoted here, I agree with, but I don't see the part where it is the government's job to help our children make those correct decisions by throwing them into prison and turning them into criminals.
stevelkinevil
09-26-2012, 22:07
I will vote against Amendment 64.
Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
THEN states can pass laws allowing it.
Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.
Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.
Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.
* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.
Although I understand your reasoning here I find one major flaw, fact is that is what has went wrong with our country, The Federal gov has become powerful in a way they were never intended to by the founding fathers. Laws were supposed to be controlled from the local/state level up, not the fed down. I do not smoke weed, frankly I am not a fan of folks that I have met who do, HOWEVER, it is a fact that this is the way things were intended to work in this nation, and without a top down approach the gun laws that cripple law abiding citizens may very well only exist in the places we don't want to live anyway.
Aloha_Shooter
09-26-2012, 23:56
Should have passed it last year so all the Obama voters would get stoned and stay home instead of voting ...
;-)
Seriously, I'm not a fan of recreational use of mind-altering drugs. I'd have been okay with the medical use as a pain reliever and anti-nausea agent of last resort if it wasn't for the fact that so much of the MMJ movement in recent years has been based on lies and deception. On the other hand, the drug war has been about as successful as Prohibition and had largely the same effect so clearly we need to find some other strategy to reduce the damaging effects of these substances.
So I take it you don't have kids...
For many, the "forbidden" IS the drive. Legalization, in total, probably won't change the total use, but it will likely change the demographics. The number of people who "start" using pot under the age of 18 is staggering, and significantly higher than alcohol, so there may be some merit there.
However, the one thing we have all left out of this discussion is the "why". A kid does not take a drink or a hit to "escape" the first time, it is usually peer pressure. Continued use of drugs, for most, is the escape from reality, a reality that is not attractive. The greater the social decline, the more drugs will be desired, used and controlling of our society. If parents would spend more time with their kids instead of chasing the drug of money and consumerism, maybe drug use could be curtailed. A person who respects others and treats them with dignity does not desire nor pursue recreational drug use, legal or otherwise, because that person values others and their future.
If what you are comunicating is condoning addiction and its root causes is not OK I agree with you. If what you are comunicating is its not OK for everyone to be stoned and not give a shit I agree with you. I think i understand your opposition to legalization of marijuana. It is indeed a complex problem. I dont have the answers only observations. It seems apparant to me that criminalization of drugs is perpetuating multi generational career criminals by allowing profit. It seems apparant to me that the "why" is not helped by incarceration. It seems apparant to me that the criminal justice resources we are using on this would be better allocated on violent offenders and the "why".
Your responses are confusing and contradictory. I can't tell if you are for legalization, or against.
What I have quoted here, I agree with, but I don't see the part where it is the government's job to help our children make those correct decisions by throwing them into prison and turning them into criminals.
The point is, you can not legislate morality...however a set of laws that portect innocnets form others choices is as far as government should go, but ours does not operate that way.
It is NOT the government's job to "raise" our children, it is the parent's job. TOO many Americans have subjugated their responsibility for their children to the schools, the government and day care workers!
What I am for has already passed. If pot were not criminalized in the first place, we would not have this problem. Can't unbreak an egg.
If what you are comunicating is condoning addiction and its root causes is not OK I agree with you. If what you are comunicating is its not OK for everyone to be stoned and not give a shit I agree with you. I think i understand your opposition to legalization of marijuana. It is indeed a complex problem. I dont have the answers only observations. It seems apparant to me that criminalization of drugs is perpetuating multi generational career criminals by allowing profit. It seems apparant to me that the "why" is not helped by incarceration. It seems apparant to me that the criminal justice resources we are using on this would be better allocated on violent offenders and the "why".
YES.
As I have stated earlier I believe marijuana to be a powerful drug with significant addiction risk. Marijuana is the drug of choice for about 8 out of 10 illicit drug users. It is my opinion that if marijuana was to be legalized a large percentage of users would be content with use of only legal drugs, just like many citizens are content to use only alcohol now. In my opinion there would be limited demand for the illegal "powerful, toxic designer drugs" you describe. Are 80% of illicit drug users going to abandon their drug of choice once it becomes legal and seek out illegal "powerful toxic designer drugs"? What I believe will happen if marijuana becomes legal is the majority of illicit marijuana users will have a strong incentive to use the only two legal drugs,marijuana and alcohol, shun criminal activities, and be overjoyed that they are no longer a criminal.
1;Its their drug of choice to begin with
2;They would not have to associate with the scumbag criminals to obtain it.
3;They would not face the risk of criminal prosecution .
The motivation is exactly the same that keeps the majority of citizens using the one legal drug available now, alcohol. In my opinion illicit drug use would strongly decline with the legalization of marijuana and the power and profits of the cartels along with it. The real question in my mind is whether legalization of marijuana and its subsequent addiction problems is worth the benefits of decriminalization of marijuana users. Imho the answer is overwhelminly yes, despite my distaste for potheads, or drunks for that matter.
I absolutely agree. Most people I know who use pot now have tried to go the "legitimate" route (I use the term loosely, much like Aloha said- they're going about it using lies that some doctors condone) and get their medical card. They have no real reason to need it other than they want to use it for recreational purposes, but have to lie to do so. I'm willing to bet about 80% of MMJ users have no legitimate excuse to get it "prescribed." If it's made all out legal, like alcohol, then I agree, they will probably only use it.
As far the drug war is concerned, if weed was legalized for rec. use then we would see a shift in what it smuggled across the border. It's already known in the drug world that the pot attained here in country is better than what is smuggled in from Mexico and other parts to the south, but the big issue will soon become coke and heroin, exclusively. It would be a blow to the cartels if you eliminate the demand for one drug coming from them.
SNIP... It would be a blow to the cartels if you eliminate the demand for one drug coming from them.
Meth is huge for the drug cartels, and they are now exploring designer drugs. There have been reports of Pot laced with designer drugs coming into the US from Mexico. If you are not scared of designer drugs, go read up on Bath Salts and Smiles and you will be. Legalization of pot won't affect the cartels long term, but it will increase the volume of more devastating drugs being pushed by the cartels.
newracer
09-27-2012, 12:54
The cartels will not get out of the MJ business if it becomes legal.
The cartels will not get out of the MJ business if it becomes legal.
No- but the business from it will take a hit.
Rucker61
09-27-2012, 14:45
. I'm willing to bet about 80% of MMJ users have no legitimate excuse to get it "prescribed."
From my research from medical and LEO friends, I think you're underestimating the number of recreational users. I've heard in the 95% range.
From my research from medical and LEO friends, I think you're underestimating the number of recreational users. I've heard in the 95% range.
Color me shocked... /sarcasm
I got some potheads (sorry, patients) mad when I stated to a girl who had her card- mainly because her reason was that she broke her ankle 10 YEARS AGO and claimed it didn't heal right- that because of my disability status with the VA, not to mention PTSD, I had more of a legitimate reason to get my MMJ Card. The only reason I didn't- I like guns, I don't like pot. They got up in arms and I simply told them, lie to your doctor, but don't bullshit me, you got your card so you can legally smoke weed- that's all I'm asking for, a little honesty.
I can't stop shaking my head while reading the posts in here. You sound like liberals discussing why civilians shouldn't be allowed to own assault rifles.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Aardvark
09-27-2012, 17:22
My random thoughts led to questions: If it passes, will this bring more Mexican MJ to Colorado? Will the cartels see a threat to their income and make some kind of move? How will drivers be treated if in an accident 'under the influence'? How will this affect insurance for non-users?
Aloha_Shooter
09-28-2012, 16:31
Interesting radio interview with Dan Mays this morning. Yes, some of you are going to bring up the fact that he bitterly opposed the medical marijuana legalization and he has never been a friend toward any use of marijuana. That doesn't take away from the legitimacy of his arguments.
He brought up something I hadn't considered: this is being pushed as a constitutional amendment. That means it will be incredibly difficult to clarify or correct provisions. He brought up a lot of different aspects of the amendment that need clarification or specification.
My feeling now is, absolutely NO on 64, bring it up as normal legislation that allows for correction, amplification and specification through the legislative process.
....this is being pushed as a constitutional amendment. That means it will be incredibly difficult to clarify or correct provisions. He brought up a lot of different aspects of the amendment that need clarification or specification.
My feeling now is, absolutely NO on 64, bring it up as normal legislation that allows for correction, amplification and specification through the legislative process.
Absolutely, no doubt about it. Thank you for this tidbit. It's reassured me of my position as well.
OneGuy67
09-29-2012, 07:47
I've always been concerned that it eas way too easy to amend our state constutution. Tjese proposals need to be enacted as law, not constitutional amendments.
10mm-man
09-29-2012, 09:35
READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Also the Federal Government has only
18 powers enumerated!
Time to get our states back. Over 50% of land in our state is owned by the Feds.
^^^^^^ Thanks for informing him![Beer]
Well in about 15 or 20 years there won't be anyone in congress that didn't play Grand Theft Auto.... So change is inevitable. And if you don't know what Grand Theft Auto is.....then we are definitely not in the same generation.
Bitter Clinger
09-29-2012, 17:42
Ill be voting no, even though I believe it should be legal. I just dont want CO to be the first. But ask yourselves this. Why is a highly addictive drug (booze) that can turn an otherwise peaceful person violent, beating small children and kicking the crap out of the wife, completely legal. BUT a low addictive drug that has virtually no negative side effects, other than the munchies and the giggles illegal? One can not OD on weed, its a chemical impossibility. They (the scientists) now have a way to tell if a person has smoked within the past few hours, so they CAN tell if your baked behind the wheel.
Personally, I would rather share the road with a stoned person vs a drunk person. Its NOT a gateway drug, hell I smoked a bit of weed in high school/college and I wasnt running out in the street trying to score heroin. Some of you need to young up a bit.
One of the reasons weed was made illegal was racial. The lawyer claimed that it " turns negros into a bat that fly around and rape white women"
All im trying to say is its not black tar or anything. Its safer than booze.
legalize it. if enough states jump on board, the fed will change their ways as well. just the way it will go.
it will limit the BATFE, DEA etc. less .gov in your lives. less the cops need to worry about. they can focus on killers, thieves, etc etc.
might as well get some tax revenue out of it to hopefully reduce taxes or help schools or improve roads or better our state lands instead of employing more .gov people to fight it.
Ill be voting no, even though I believe it should be legal. I just dont want CO to be the first. But ask yourselves this. Why is a highly addictive drug (booze) that can turn an otherwise peaceful person violent, beating small children and kicking the crap out of the wife, completely legal. BUT a low addictive drug that has virtually no negative side effects, other than the munchies and the giggles illegal? One can not OD on weed, its a chemical impossibility. They (the scientists) now have a way to tell if a person has smoked within the past few hours, so they CAN tell if your baked behind the wheel.
Personally, I would rather share the road with a stoned person vs a drunk person. Its NOT a gateway drug, hell I smoked a bit of weed in high school/college and I wasnt running out in the street trying to score heroin. Some of you need to young up a bit.
One of the reasons weed was made illegal was racial. The lawyer claimed that it " turns negros into a bat that fly around and rape white women"
All im trying to say is its not black tar or anything. Its safer than booze.
I don't see your reasoning for voting no. just curious, you made more than enough of a point, one I agree with as to legalize it. I am guessing you want less .gov in your life.
The issue I see is the amount of liberal types that will outweigh the conservative types that smoke weed coming here for the law. I think it is a slightly unfounded issue on my part as it is probably equal, but I am curious how it would impact the state population and the political map of the state
jerrymrc
09-29-2012, 21:15
P.S. You have a poll. So now I am an old fart of 54 that grew up in the 60's-70's. A thought. Why not just decriminalize it instead of making it legal?
back in the 70's Oregon decriminalized pot to make possession of under an OZ a traffic ticket. The cops back then did one of two things. You keep it and I write the ticket or I keep it and you go on your way.
I know it sounds strange but that is the way it was circa 1977 in Or-E-Gun.
Just some musings from one who understands. [Flower]
Skullworks
09-30-2012, 17:43
What surprises the #ell out of me is that the giant sleeping monster known as the IRS has not gone full postal over the MMJ we all ready have in CO.
The Federal MJ tax has never been repealed and I'm willing to bet that not one dispensary has even tried to actually pay the Federal tax. So after a few years I could see the IRS auditing all these dispensaries and hitting them up for back taxes. Such action would crush local economies as this has been one of the few growth industries since Obummer took office. ( pun intended )
A (state) amendment is not the way.
I tend to agree with the Nevada method. Legislate, Regulate, then tax the life out of it.
Here we go again, another utilitarian 'argument' over matters of principle...
It is none of your business what I do with my body (for what it might be worth, I find recreational and most 'medical' pharmaceutical use to be the height of folly); it is also none of my business what you do with your body, no matter how badly it might harm you (like the disgusting and really stupid habit of smoking tobacco).
A government that is supposed to protect the unalienable rights of the citizenry has no business violating those rights. Prior restraint, whether it concerns tools like firearms or chemical substances like drugs, is inherently incompatible with Liberty (one of those unalienable rights the government was created to protect).
Teufelhund
10-08-2012, 12:20
I've always been concerned that it eas way too easy to amend our state constutution. Tjese proposals need to be enacted as law, not constitutional amendments.
This is a good point. I'm torn on how to vote on this issue; I think I need a venn diagram to help me decide. While I'm opposed to anything that supports the War on Personal Freedom (e.g. war on drugs), I partially agree with the sentiment above. This should be proposed as a measure to repeal existing legislation (new laws to specify something as being not illegal makes no sense); it has no place in any State Constitution.
I just wrote this- addressing why 64 is not a good idea- now, disclaimer, it's not from a perspective saying that smoking dope is bad in the whole parental concern area- it addresses the logical and feasibility issues that are connected with this legislation:
http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-amendment-64
Read, and weigh in your thoughts...
OneGuy67
10-18-2012, 17:16
P.S. You have a poll. So now I am an old fart of 54 that grew up in the 60's-70's. A thought. Why not just decriminalize it instead of making it legal?
back in the 70's Oregon decriminalized pot to make possession of under an OZ a traffic ticket. The cops back then did one of two things. You keep it and I write the ticket or I keep it and you go on your way.
I know it sounds strange but that is the way it was circa 1977 in Or-E-Gun.
Just some musings from one who understands. [Flower]
Jerry,
That is pretty much how it is here in Colorado currently. 2 ounces and less is a non-arrestable petty offense that can result in a ticket that has a maximum fine by statute of $100.00. In fact, I would say that is cheaper than most speeding tickets.
All the proponents of legalization always say something about all the arrests made and cops needing better things to do than arrest people for simple possession. The truth is, a person cannot be arrested for a petty offense; it is a ticketable offense only.
This is a good point. I'm torn on how to vote on this issue; I think I need a venn diagram to help me decide. While I'm opposed to anything that supports the War on Personal Freedom (e.g. war on drugs), I partially agree with the sentiment above. This should be proposed as a measure to repeal existing legislation (new laws to specify something as being not illegal makes no sense); it has no place in any State Constitution.
Helpful?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_marw3qMdG11rn2unlo1_500.jpg
Teufelhund
10-18-2012, 19:15
LOL no. But it was funny anyway.
Here is one I think is funny that I'm also probably going to hell for:
http://rlv.zcache.com/the_immaculate_venn_diagram_sticker-p217959128589434737envb3_400.jpg
The marijuana debate is a good bit like gay marriage, abortion, or condo prices on mars: none of them affect me personally. If someone wants to smoke pot, marry someone of their own gender, or buy waterfront property on mars, have at it!
Great-Kazoo
10-18-2012, 22:04
Jerry,
That is pretty much how it is here in Colorado currently. 2 ounces and less is a non-arrestable petty offense that can result in a ticket that has a maximum fine by statute of $100.00. In fact, I would say that is cheaper than most speeding tickets.
All the proponents of legalization always say something about all the arrests made and cops needing better things to do than arrest people for simple possession. The truth is, a person cannot be arrested for a petty offense; it is a ticketable offense only.
What's sad is so many people have no clue it's a basic misdemeanor. Yet feel the need for ANOTHER LAW.
Regarding putting a dent in the cartels, never, want to know where weed is coming from in CO? College kids with grow rooms in the homes they rent or own. Personal consumption with the current law for card holders is 3? plants in your home. Not a dent being made there.
Only a weak person allows any form of substance to control them, be it alcohol, pot or other chemicals.
Don't like pot great don't vote yes. It should not be a state constitutional amendment. It should also be left to the states and not the feds, if it is decriminalized or not.
As for the IRS in CO, just wait. The feds hit a brick wall in CA, so they dragged the IRS in and now going after the profits as Ill gotten Gains.
I'm more afraid of the IRS then the feds. Those $%^&8 don't need a reason to seize your shit. IRS, Knock Knock, Seized:(
Teufelhund
10-18-2012, 23:00
What's sad is so many people have no clue it's a basic misdemeanor. Yet feel the need for ANOTHER LAW.
Regarding putting a dent in the cartels, never, want to know where weed is coming from in CO? College kids with grow rooms in the homes they rent or own. Personal consumption with the current law for card holders is 3? plants in your home. Not a dent being made there.
Only a weak person allows any form of substance to control them, be it alcohol, pot or other chemicals.
Don't like pot great don't vote yes. It should not be a state constitutional amendment. It should also be left to the states and not the feds, if it is decriminalized or not.
As for the IRS in CO, just wait. The feds hit a brick wall in CA, so they dragged the IRS in and now going after the profits as Ill gotten Gains.
I'm more afraid of the IRS then the feds. Those $%^&8 don't need a reason to seize your shit. IRS, Knock Knock, Seized:(
You've got it. That's pretty much what the Constitution says, doesn't it? State Sovereignty, Enumerated Powers and such?
Those IRS boys are not asking politely either.
http://media.komonews.com/images/090407_IRS_raid.jpg
I'm more afraid of the IRS then the feds.
The IRS boys are feds...
HoneyBadger
10-18-2012, 23:30
Only a weak person allows any form of substance to control them, be it alcohol, pot or other chemicals.
You win the internet for the night! [Weight]
lead_magnet
10-19-2012, 02:54
Legalize it.
A: Safer pot for the people (kids) smoking it.
B: The potential for violence from somone under the influence is WAY less than ETOH
C: Cops have better things to do
D: Reduction of crime steming from pot seekers (believe it or not this happens ALOT) ie. burglaries, robberies, etc.
And no, I don't smoke pot. I'm a grown-up and I have things to do. These people need to act like adults and do coke like the rest of us.
*sigh* I shouldn't even have to say this, but the above is a joke, and a stolen one at that. /modsafteydisclaimer
Great-Kazoo
10-19-2012, 14:32
The IRS boys are feds...
Actually like the FEDERAL Reserve, they are not, a subsidiary of yes.
SA Friday
10-19-2012, 15:29
I will vote no simply because this should not be a state constitution amendment. It should be handled at a lower level. I personally want to see it done, but I would like to see it handled more like gambling establishments. I don't want a coffee house on every corner, but I wouldn't mind seeing secular locations. This would promote tourism and lessen permanent relocation to solely smoke dope. I would also like to see this law promote the growing of hemp as a cash crop in the state. It would give CO a literal monopoly on the production and use of hemp in this country. The potential for industrial and agricultural growth would be highly stimulating for the entire state.
Zundfolge
10-19-2012, 16:19
It would give CO a literal monopoly on the production and use of hemp in this country. The potential for industrial and agricultural growth would be highly stimulating for the entire state.
No, it wouldn't.
It will STILL Be illegal at the Federal level folks ... all passing Amendment 64 will do is cause massive legal conflicts between the CO State government and the Feds (so I guess it could be considered a subsidy to those poor trial attorneys) and it will make Colorado even more of a magnet for pot smokers (most of which vote Democrat and thus skew every other aspect of Colorado government to the left ... that will probably eventually mean an end to Colorado as a very gun friendly state among other things). Lord knows we don't need even more Californians moving here.
I'm all for legalization, but it has to be legalized at the Federal level FIRST, then the states can decide if they want it there.
No, it wouldn't.
It will STILL Be illegal at the Federal level folks ... all passing Amendment 64 will do is cause massive legal conflicts between the CO State government and the Feds (so I guess it could be considered a subsidy to those poor trial attorneys) and it will make Colorado even more of a magnet for pot smokers (most of which vote Democrat and thus skew every other aspect of Colorado government to the left ... that will probably eventually mean an end to Colorado as a very gun friendly state among other things). Lord knows we don't need even more Californians moving here.
I'm all for legalization, but it has to be legalized at the Federal level FIRST, then the states can decide if they want it there.
Yup. Either we get it legalized at the federal level or we do away with federal enforcement and the DEA, then we the individual states decide if they want the dopers or not.
buckshotbarlow
10-19-2012, 19:41
only reason why i voted no was because they didnt break down how the revenue was going to be spent. if they would of had a cleaner break down then i would of voted yes.
ringhilt
10-26-2012, 21:28
I personally voted this amendment down.
Two reasons:
First, they made it a state constitutional amendment. This is not a constitutional topic. It is simply a statutory item and if legalized would be regulated just like alcohol. But Colorado is fricking insane and puts EVERYTHING in the state constitution. stupid in my opinion. This alone is enough reason to vote it down.
Second, the only reason they want to legalize it is for the tax revenue. Not for freedom for the individual. Or the right to own your own body and do with it as you wish. (as long as you do no harm to anyone else).
They just want the money. I will not participate in a scheme to increase the states tax revenue. They have enough money, just stop wasting it on useless items. We the citizens live on a budget, why can't the government? In general the government needs to stop being a helicopter nanny and but out of our lives and limit itself to common good items.
My $1.02 on this topic.
centrarchidae
10-28-2012, 02:43
I voted no.
This didn't belong in the constitution. It's a simple change to statute, or it should have been.
The funding formula didn't belong either, and especially not the pandering "school construction" crap.
Had the question merely been "Colorado Revised Statute 18-18-406(1) is hereby repealed in its entirety, yes or no?" I'd have voted 'yes' without hesitation.
ETA: The Feds didn't just up and repeal Prohibition one day. They did it after several years of states repealing their own state-level prohibition laws and refusing to enforce Federal law, and telling the Feds "It's yours, not ours." Kind of like what Montana and Tennessee tried to do with the NFA in the last 2-3 years.
TEAMRICO
10-28-2012, 11:01
I voted NO because Im not favoring some pot head being a drag on the world. Put down the pipe and get a job.
I deal with kids at school who's parents and family are the biggest influence for them to do pot.....AND THEY ARE ONLY 11-13 YEARS OF AGE!!! When their parents come into pick them up you can see the outstanding role model!
Keep it illegal and deal with the consequences of your life's decisions.
What should legalize next to make people feel better?
Screw your pot and drug habit. Im not supporting it so you can stay high and irresponsible all your life.
dtbighit
10-28-2012, 11:06
I voted NO because Im not favoring some pot head being a drag on the world. Put down the pipe and get a job.
I deal with kids at school who's parents and family are the biggest influence for them to do pot.....AND THEY ARE ONLY 11-13 YEARS OF AGE!!! When their parents come into pick them up you can see the outstanding role model!
Keep it illegal and deal with the consequences of your life's decisions.
What should legalize next to make people feel better?
Screw your pot and drug habit. Im not supporting it so you can stay high and irresponsible all your life.
I could not have said it better,thank you
SuperiorDG
10-28-2012, 12:45
I feel the same way about pot (all drugs really), as I do about "warning labels", if that tells you anything. Let those who want to use them, die off, and the general population will be better for it. Call me crazy.
I'll use the above to make my point, because I agree with it and I hear it throughout this thread. We, this country, has taken away the right to fall. This is what takes away our motivation to succeed. Helmet laws, or lack of, in CO are a good example. People back East think it's crazy we don't tell people they have to ware helmets for your own protection. Living in CO has taught me that you are responsible for your own life, not the government. Law against one's freedom to fall are the downfall of us all. The same with pot. If you want to lower your chances of success then so be it. Just like guns, there are many ways to kill yourself. Outlawing guns, pot or whatever is not going to stop one from reducing their life expectancy.
Rust_shackleford
10-29-2012, 11:39
I voted NO because Im not favoring some pot head being a drag on the world. Put down the pipe and get a job.
I deal with kids at school who's parents and family are the biggest influence for them to do pot.....AND THEY ARE ONLY 11-13 YEARS OF AGE!!! When their parents come into pick them up you can see the outstanding role model!
Keep it illegal and deal with the consequences of your life's decisions.
What should legalize next to make people feel better?
Screw your pot and drug habit. Im not supporting it so you can stay high and irresponsible all your life.
Bring back the 18th Amendment too. I'm tired of all the cost of jailing DUI's and drunken bar fight low lifes. No more dead innocent victims of drunk drivers too. Also the cost to society with loose morals that go hand in hand with drunkenness. End all the unwanted pregnancies attributed to alcohol. Alcohol is of the Devil. It needs to be condemned for the social ill it is!
Alcohol slackers get a job, I'm tired of giving you dollar bills to clean my windshield.
Damn it Michael Phelps, only 18 gold medals, you could of had 20 if you didn't smoke weed! Damn it Arnold, if you didn't smoke weed you could've been Mr. Olympia 7 times! Damn it Obama, maybe republicans would like you more if you didn't smoke pot! Damn it Richard Branson, if you laid off the weed you could've had more than one spaceship!
I'm not too sure what your idea of success is but a known pot head owns a mother f*%king SPACESHIP. Please people stop making useless points about "stoned slackers". It makes you look very ignorant of your surroundings. Maybe you should smoke a joint and clear your head so you can think strait.
Rust_shackleford
10-29-2012, 12:33
Damn it Michael Phelps, only 18 gold medals, you could of had 20 if you didn't smoke weed! Damn it Arnold, if you didn't smoke weed you could've been Mr. Olympia 7 times! Damn it Obama, maybe republicans would like you more if you didn't smoke pot! Damn it Richard Branson, if you laid off the weed you could've had more than one spaceship!
I'm not too sure what your idea of success is but a known pot head owns a mother f*%king SPACESHIP. Please people stop making useless points about "stoned slackers". It makes you look very ignorant of your surroundings. Maybe you should smoke a joint and clear your head so you can think strait.
Burn in hell hippie! Jesus will smite thee for thy unclean beliefs.[Mad]
Teufelhund
10-29-2012, 13:05
I voted NO because Im not favoring some pot head being a drag on the world. Put down the pipe and get a job.
I deal with kids at school who's parents and family are the biggest influence for them to do pot.....AND THEY ARE ONLY 11-13 YEARS OF AGE!!! When their parents come into pick them up you can see the outstanding role model!
Keep it illegal and deal with the consequences of your life's decisions.
What should legalize next to make people feel better?
Screw your pot and drug habit. Im not supporting it so you can stay high and irresponsible all your life.
Here's to basing your opinion on ignorant speculation. [Beer]
Pot heads are all irresponsible and unemployed drags on society, huh? Do you think they're handing out free bags of weed at the welfare office?
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that there may be responsible, gainfully-employed, tax-paying pot heads, and you don't know about it because they live their lives as though their personal choices are none of your damn business. The nerve of some people, huh?
Damn it Michael Phelps, only 18 gold medals, you could of had 20 if you didn't smoke weed! Damn it Arnold, if you didn't smoke weed you could've been Mr. Olympia 7 times! Damn it Obama, maybe republicans would like you more if you didn't smoke pot! Damn it Richard Branson, if you laid off the weed you could've had more than one spaceship!
I'm not too sure what your idea of success is but a known pot head owns a mother f*%king SPACESHIP. Please people stop making useless points about "stoned slackers". It makes you look very ignorant of your surroundings. Maybe you should smoke a joint and clear your head so you can think strait.
How about this part of the argument- your friend gets put into a coma for 52 days because he got hit by a guy driving while stoned out of his mind... they couldn't fully prove he was driving under the influence of drugs at the time so it was just classified as an accident (rich stoner kids and their parent's lawyers [Mad])... Yeah, forget the guy with the spaceship, how about the fact that there is no real easy way to test if you're driving while high so enforcement is damn near impossible, and it affects people in different ways. I'd rather not 'share the road' with a bunch of stoned people all day, it's bad enough with the drunks. Go back to Commiefornia hippy.
ETA: and most of the stoners I know don't win gold medals, or build spaceships, they are fucking slackers... and you spelled STRAIGHT wrong... Put down the bong.
Teufelhund
10-29-2012, 13:36
Yes, forget all the examples which prove this line of thinking is bullshit; only your examples count. If only we could pass enough laws to make everything anyone disagrees with illegal, everyone would live forever! Let's see, what other group thinks like that. . . oh yeah, Liberals/progressive statists. Did you already vote for Obama then, or are you waiting until Tuesday?
BTW, it is already illegal to kill people, harm people, or drive in a reckless manner. "Why" is irrelevant and leads to superfluous legislation like "hate crimes" and gun control.
Hmm In high school into college I used to smoke quite a bit of weed. drank with my friends etc...
While this happened i was a 4 year 3 sport varsity athlete. 3.5 gpa I hold the school record for the ACT and SAT at my school. National honor society. president of the FFA chapter.
School of mines and CU both recruited me to their schools and no not for sports.
I would have been at the air force academy had all my ducks in a row but i am color blind and too tall to be a pilot.
Yup weed ruined my life I am lazy a leech on society et al.
Ronin sounds like you need to surround yourself with more productive people.
Ronin13, you share the road with "stoned slackers" already nothing you can do about it. Sorry about your friend, driving a car is the most dangerous thing you will do in your day to day life and shit happens. Like you said no way to know if he really was on weed at the time, just your own assumption. I know you are smarter than this, of course most people do not win gold medals and build spaceships. I was trying to make the point that weed has nothing to do with it. Please stop with the personal attacks and emotional appeal, it doesn't really do much for your argument.
For many, whether or not we smoke pot has nothing to do with legality: making it legal wouldn't see many of us rush out to buy it. I don't particularly care if it's legal or not, I have no interest in partaking.
I don't recall the exact numbers but I asked someone recently what marijuana costs and I recall thinking the price I was quoted was enough, all by itself, to discourage use (it sounds expensive!).
The main issue I have is that it is illegal on a federal level- so if this passes and businesses are allowed to sell it doesn't that open the door to hurt our businesses during a time when we need business to boom? xring, you make a great point, even if it were legal federally and here, I still wouldn't use it- BTDT, didn't like what it does to me. I'll stay mostly opposed to legalization until they can figure out a way to prove someone's level of MJ-induced intoxication while driving and be able to punish much like with drinking and driving.
this is the problem with thc in the blood, tough to gauge intoxication blood levels. I'm sure someone can figure it out. though chronic users are never super sharp even when not high. I voted yes. mostly so the pot heads can focus on something else.
Bring back the 18th Amendment too. I'm tired of all the cost of jailing DUI's and drunken bar fight low lifes. No more dead innocent victims of drunk drivers too. Also the cost to society with loose morals that go hand in hand with drunkenness. End all the unwanted pregnancies attributed to alcohol. Alcohol is of the Devil. It needs to be condemned for the social ill it is!
Alcohol slackers get a job, I'm tired of giving you dollar bills to clean my windshield.
Bring back the 18th Amendment too. I'm tired of all the cost of jailing DUI's and drunken bar fight low lifes. No more dead innocent victims of drunk drivers too. Also the cost to society with loose morals that go hand in hand with drunkenness. End all the unwanted pregnancies attributed to alcohol. Alcohol is of the Devil. It needs to be condemned for the social ill it is!
Alcohol slackers get a job, I'm tired of giving you dollar bills to clean my windshield.
[Beer] beautiful. I like the way you think
It may have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but just to reiterate and bring something back to the forefront of our minds. I suggest we all consider carefully, what impact amendment 64 will have on the future politics of our state... What impact might it have on the decisions of families considering a move to or from Colorado?
As we all know, most Coloradans are not native to our state. We are the 3rd fastest growing state in the country and Colorado Conservation Trust has projected that we'll continue adding roughly 105,000 new residents PER YEAR through 2040.
With an amendment like 64 passing, it seems to me like we'll be guaranteeing that CO is no longer a swing state.... IMHO, we'd be cementing our Blue vote heretofore.
Teufelhund
10-30-2012, 09:07
Good points, Sawin. I think if Colorado were to be first to decriminalize it, the novelty would wear off pretty quickly and other States would follow soon. There may be a slight increase in the influx of new residents, but I don't think it would be significant. I'd be shocked if a large number of people actually moved to a different State just to smoke pot. I'd think most people who can afford to just move to a different State on a whim base such life decisions on more important factors than just whether or not they can get high legally. One can easily find weed in any State; no need to move for it.
I'm not sure I follow you on the "Blue State" speculation. What makes you think all stoners are Democrats? From what I've seen, the Democratic party fully supports the war on drugs.
Good points, Sawin. I think if Colorado were to be first to decriminalize it, the novelty would wear off pretty quickly and other States would follow soon. There may be a slight increase in the influx of new residents, but I don't think it would be significant. I'd be shocked if a large number of people actually moved to a different State just to smoke pot. I'd think most people who can afford to just move to a different State on a whim base such life decisions on more important factors than just whether or not they can get high legally. One can easily find weed in any State; no need to move for it.
I'm not sure I follow you on the "Blue State" speculation. What makes you think all stoners are Democrats? From what I've seen, the Democratic party fully supports the war on drugs.
You could be right Teufelhund, but it only takes a couple % of the total leaning one way or another to shift the politics, and I think if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that overall there are more left leaning pot-enthusiasts than there are right leaning ones. Even if it's close to even, as the law of large numbers would imply, being the very first state to legalize it will inevitably create a stigma and it will cause an influx of marijuana users, even if it's just for the novelty of it all.... The level of influx is impossible to predict and that's what we all have to consider.
With these thoughts in mind, please know that I'm not opposed to the taxation and regulation of Medical marijuana, or marijuana in general, from a budget and tax standpoint.... We obviously need new sources of revenue as well as spending cuts, to balance the state budget, but I'm concerned about the impact of it especially if we are first in the nation.
Zundfolge
10-30-2012, 09:54
With an amendment like 64 passing, it seems to me like we'll be guaranteeing that CO is no longer a swing state.... IMHO, we'd be cementing our Blue vote heretofore.
As I stated before, this is why I'm voting against it even though I support MJ legalization.
We become the only state to legalize MJ and we'll end up becoming California (or worse). You can kiss any chance of future conservative leadership goodbye and expect a massive increase in spending, taxes and ruinous regulations. I figure the first thing these new hard-left Coloradoans will do is dismantle TABOR. And if the winds ever blow in favor of gun control again you can kiss our shall-issue CCW system and NFA friendly sheriffs goodbye too.
Now if the Federal Government were to de-criminalize MJ at the Federal level first, And then there were several other states passing legalization laws at the same time (or better yet, before us) I'd gladly vote for it.
Ronin sounds like you need to surround yourself with more productive people.
Perhaps... But I wasn't saying everyone who smokes is lazy, unproductive, and a "slacker," it effects people differently. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of who you are and how it effects you depending on how much you've done, it does actually effect people- some it inhibits their judgement, others reaction time, etc.
Ronin13, you share the road with "stoned slackers" already nothing you can do about it. Sorry about your friend, driving a car is the most dangerous thing you will do in your day to day life and shit happens. Like you said no way to know if he really was on weed at the time, just your own assumption. I know you are smarter than this, of course most people do not win gold medals and build spaceships. I was trying to make the point that weed has nothing to do with it. Please stop with the personal attacks and emotional appeal, it doesn't really do much for your argument.
I also share the road with drunk drivers... should we just make that legal too? And no, it wasn't my assumption, I wasn't there, but it's pretty easy to tell someone is stoned, you just can't prove it very easily on a legal basis so someone can get away with it if they have a good lawyer. And driving is the most dangerous thing you can do, so how about we not encourage people to make it even more dangerous?
As I stated before, this is why I'm voting against it even though I support MJ legalization.
We become the only state to legalize MJ and we'll end up becoming California (or worse). You can kiss any chance of future conservative leadership goodbye and expect a massive increase in spending, taxes and ruinous regulations. I figure the first thing these new hard-left Coloradoans will do is dismantle TABOR. And if the winds ever blow in favor of gun control again you can kiss our shall-issue CCW system and NFA friendly sheriffs goodbye too.
Now if the Federal Government were to de-criminalize MJ at the Federal level first, And then there were several other states passing legalization laws at the same time (or better yet, before us) I'd gladly vote for it.
My thoughts exactly.
Zundfolge
10-30-2012, 19:22
... but it's pretty easy to tell someone is stoned, you just can't prove it very easily on a legal basis so someone can get away with it if they have a good lawyer.
You don't need a breathalyser or blood test to get a solid conviction on DUI, all you need is for the officer to demonstrate that you failed the roadside sobriety test.
Years ago I had a friend that was a professional painter. One day he forgot his breathing aparatus so he did the job without it (dumb) and drove home. Got pulled over, the breathalyser results said he had something like 20 times the lethal dose of alcohol in his system. He also failed the roadside sobriety test. He hadn't had a drop to drink.
Judge threw out the breathalyser results since he was clearly not dead 20 times over and he still got convicted of the DUI based solely on the failure of the roadside sobriety test.
As I stated before, this is why I'm voting against it even though I support MJ legalization.
We become the only state to legalize MJ and we'll end up becoming California (or worse). You can kiss any chance of future conservative leadership goodbye and expect a massive increase in spending, taxes and ruinous regulations. I figure the first thing these new hard-left Coloradoans will do is dismantle TABOR. And if the winds ever blow in favor of gun control again you can kiss our shall-issue CCW system and NFA friendly sheriffs goodbye too.
Now if the Federal Government were to de-criminalize MJ at the Federal level first, And then there were several other states passing legalization laws at the same time (or better yet, before us) I'd gladly vote for it.
Do you feel that this is different than the way that Montana bucked the Feds by trying to make local machine guns legal, even though they weren't Federally? Do you feel the same?
Great-Kazoo
10-30-2012, 22:22
It may have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but just to reiterate and bring something back to the forefront of our minds. I suggest we all consider carefully, what impact amendment 64 will have on the future politics of our state... What impact might it have on the decisions of families considering a move to or from Colorado?
As we all know, most Coloradans are not native to our state. We are the 3rd fastest growing state in the country and Colorado Conservation Trust has projected that we'll continue adding roughly 105,000 new residents PER YEAR through 2040.
With an amendment like 64 passing, it seems to me like we'll be guaranteeing that CO is no longer a swing state.... IMHO, we'd be cementing our Blue vote heretofore.
Yes or not on 64. bad news guys CO has been blue for some time.
Ritter then hinkypooper as .gov, pearlmutter and polis as state reps. Pat Schroeder then DeGette in office and never coming close to loosing their seat due to close voting.
BG checks at gunshows voted in by dems, libs AND sensible, conscience voting gun owners.
The independent voter pulls the lever for who ever will give them what they want to hear. This year might be different but don't count on R if he does taking CO by many votes.
Yep Blue we be:(
Rust_shackleford
10-31-2012, 09:54
Yes or not on 64. bad news guys CO has been blue for some time.
Ritter then hinkypooper as .gov, pearlmutter and polis as state reps. Pat Schroeder then DeGette in office and never coming close to loosing their seat due to close voting.
BG checks at gunshows voted in by dems, libs AND sensible, conscience voting gun owners.
The independent voter pulls the lever for who ever will give them what they want to hear. This year might be different but don't count on R if he does taking CO by many votes.
Yep Blue we be:(
Yep and out West we have to suffer with Denver's liberal BS
Yes or not on 64. bad news guys CO has been blue for some time.
Ritter then hinkypooper as .gov, pearlmutter and polis as state reps. Pat Schroeder then DeGette in office and never coming close to loosing their seat due to close voting.
BG checks at gunshows voted in by dems, libs AND sensible, conscience voting gun owners.
The independent voter pulls the lever for who ever will give them what they want to hear. This year might be different but don't count on R if he does taking CO by many votes.
Yep Blue we be:(
This is what pisses me off... I love CO so much, I was born and raised here and still think it's the best place to live (after living in 4 other states during my military service)... but I hate how we're so 2A friendly (for now), sportsman friendly, and outdoorsy friendly, but so many damn hippies and libturds that can potentially mess up the whole damn thing- I realize they'll respect the hunting passions that Coloradans have, but what about shooting? I like my "hi-cap clips" ([Bang]) and my "military style assault rifles"...
USAFGopherMike
10-31-2012, 11:12
I will vote against Amendment 64.
Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.
It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").
THEN states can pass laws allowing it.
Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.
Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.
Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.
* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.
Spot on that. I concur. Let them legalize it somewhere else, then tax the hell out of it.
Teufelhund
10-31-2012, 11:40
Question for the law-savvy: If this Amendment passes, how would it impact existing State law which makes use/sale a criminal offense? Surely both can not exist, right?
Circuits
10-31-2012, 13:07
To the extent that new statutes conflict with older statutes, the older statues become invalid - the principle of legislative supremacy.
OneGuy67
10-31-2012, 13:18
To the extent that new statutes conflict with older statutes, the older statues become invalid - the principle of legislative supremacy.
We aren't talking about conflicting statutes. Amendment 64 is a state Constitution Amendment, which will supersede any statute. Hence, the main crux of the issue/discussion of it. Far too easy to amend the state constitution and an issue like this should be handled at the legislator/statute level, not at the amendment level.
We aren't talking about conflicting statutes. Amendment 64 is a state Constitution Amendment, which will supersede any statute. Hence, the main crux of the issue/discussion of it. Far too easy to amend the state constitution and an issue like this should be handled at the legislator/statute level, not at the amendment level.
That's one of the things I was curious about... So technically this goes one higher at the State Constitutional level, it won't even be detailed in the CRS... Is alcohol in Colorado handled the same way? Or is alcohol legislated in CRS?
Rust_shackleford
10-31-2012, 14:23
That's one of the things I was curious about... So technically this goes one higher at the State Constitutional level, it won't even be detailed in the CRS... Is alcohol in Colorado handled the same way? Or is alcohol legislated in CRS?
It's CRS 18 for criminal and CRS 42 for traffic related. CRS 12 I think is licensing regs not sure.
OneGuy67
10-31-2012, 14:32
That's one of the things I was curious about... So technically this goes one higher at the State Constitutional level, it won't even be detailed in the CRS... Is alcohol in Colorado handled the same way? Or is alcohol legislated in CRS?
Alcohol isn't mentioned in the state constitution. It is handled in the statutes. While I am normally loathe to quote Wikipedia, they do a pretty good job of outlining the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_State_of_Colorado
Alcohol isn't mentioned in the state constitution. It is handled in the statutes. While I am normally loathe to quote Wikipedia, they do a pretty good job of outlining the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_State_of_Colorado
So if I understand correctly, the voters decide upon amendments to the state constitution, but state legislation decides on changes to the Colorado Revised Statutes... Right?
OneGuy67
10-31-2012, 15:49
So if I understand correctly, the voters decide upon amendments to the state constitution, but state legislation decides on changes to the Colorado Revised Statutes... Right?
Simplistically speaking, yes.
Spot on that. I concur. Let them legalize it somewhere else, then tax the hell out of it.
Please explain why you believe the concept of "tax the hell out of it!" is acceptable in any way, shape, form, or context.
Please explain why you believe the concept of "tax the hell out of it!" is acceptable in any way, shape, form, or context.
Rust put it best:
Read my lips no new taxes!
[Beer]
USAFGopherMike
11-01-2012, 09:54
Please explain why you believe the concept of "tax the hell out of it!" is acceptable in any way, shape, form, or context.
Let me be clear here.. I hate taxes. Some are necessary in order to carry out the constitution. I'd rather have drugs taxed... somewhere else. California seems a good spot. They like taxes there. I don't like my alcohol or gasoline taxed and I especially don't like my deisel taxed. I hate taxes. Let the liberals pay all the taxes since they like taxes so much. Hollywood libs can pay all the taxes. If it were up to me, there would be no paper money and everybody would pay. Period. Call it consumption tax or something. VAT. As long as everybody pays the same percentage. I don't like freeloaders.
USAFGopherMike
11-01-2012, 09:58
Hmm In high school into college I used to smoke quite a bit of weed. drank with my friends etc...
While this happened i was a 4 year 3 sport varsity athlete. 3.5 gpa I hold the school record for the ACT and SAT at my school. National honor society. president of the FFA chapter.
School of mines and CU both recruited me to their schools and no not for sports.
I would have been at the air force academy had all my ducks in a row but i am color blind and too tall to be a pilot.
Yup weed ruined my life I am lazy a leech on society et al.
Ronin sounds like you need to surround yourself with more productive people.
So you didn't go to the Academy because you couldn't be a pilot? There are lots of other jobs in the AF, even if you're colorblind. Service is not about you btw.
Rust_shackleford
11-01-2012, 10:09
So you didn't go to the Academy because you couldn't be a pilot? There are lots of other jobs in the AF, even if you're colorblind. Service is not about you btw.
Infantry is always hiring! [Beer]
So you didn't go to the Academy because you couldn't be a pilot? There are lots of other jobs in the AF, even if you're colorblind. Service is not about you btw.
Infantry is always hiring! [Beer]
[ROFL1] I like what Mike said, and Rust- you really think someone who is dead set on being a pilot is really motivated for the riggers of the life of an infantryman? [Tooth]
Teufelhund
11-01-2012, 10:54
Let me be clear here.. I hate taxes. Some are necessary in order to carry out the constitution. I'd rather have drugs taxed... somewhere else. California seems a good spot. They like taxes there. I don't like my alcohol or gasoline taxed and I especially don't like my deisel taxed. I hate taxes. Let the liberals pay all the taxes since they like taxes so much. Hollywood libs can pay all the taxes. If it were up to me, there would be no paper money and everybody would pay. Period. Call it consumption tax or something. VAT. As long as everybody pays the same percentage. I don't like freeloaders.
Sounds like reasonable plan (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks) to me.
Let me be clear here.. I hate taxes. Some are necessary in order to carry out the constitution. I'd rather have drugs taxed... somewhere else. California seems a good spot. They like taxes there. I don't like my alcohol or gasoline taxed and I especially don't like my deisel taxed. I hate taxes. Let the liberals pay all the taxes since they like taxes so much. Hollywood libs can pay all the taxes. If it were up to me, there would be no paper money and everybody would pay. Period. Call it consumption tax or something. VAT. As long as everybody pays the same percentage. I don't like freeloaders.
Be careful when you espouse that it is okay to tax something you don't buy, just because you don't buy it. It is a slippery slope, and there will always be someone who would love to tax what you are into.
Do you feel that this is different than the way that Montana bucked the Feds by trying to make local machine guns legal, even though they weren't Federally? Do you feel the same?
Anyone going to address this? Question open to everyone. If Amendment 64 was for legal, locally produced NFA firearms, would you vote the same way?
Rust_shackleford
11-02-2012, 10:06
Anyone going to address this? Question open to everyone. If Amendment 64 was for legal, locally produced NFA firearms, would you vote the same way?
There's a shit load of these arguments. Most of what the Feds have taken over violate the 10th Amendment. The Constitution gives the Feds 18 responsibilities, but as with all governments the people have gotten dumb downed and complacent, which has allowed the Elitist to take over our country.
Anyone going to address this? Question open to everyone. If Amendment 64 was for legal, locally produced NFA firearms, would you vote the same way?
In your wise words- Slippery slope- I'm not sure how this would work with the BATFE, and what not, but since it's in the CO Constitution I would be all for it. Like I said earlier, and thanks to OneGuy for giving me info on it, vices should be handled by the CRS, and rights should be handled by the Constitution (state or federal). The 2nd Amendment need not be regulated- at our state level, I would be all for A) Supporting the local gun-economy, and B) anything that would have a way around the NFA for those of us who have legitimate cause to own a firearm. I don't know how they would go about it, but I don't see MJ and guns being on the same regulatory platform. Gun ownership is a right written in both the state and national constitution. They make zero mention of drugs/alcohol (well except for that pesky prohibition bit) being a "god given right." It's been proven time and time again, the majority of gun owners do not commit crimes (those who go about the process legally). [Beer]
Rust_shackleford
11-02-2012, 10:12
Be careful when you espouse that it is okay to tax something you don't buy, just because you don't buy it. It is a slippery slope, and there will always be someone who would love to tax what you are into.
Like your guns. They come with a built in Tax already. That's one the ATF's jobs is to collect them.[PoPo]
USAFGopherMike
11-02-2012, 11:09
So what would you advocate taxing? Everything and anything? Political ads should be heavily taxed. I do like the idea of a flat income tax, say 5-7%? Better than what we have now. That way everybody pays the same rate, which is fair.
Rust_shackleford
11-02-2012, 11:12
So what would you advocate taxing? Everything and anything? Political ads should be heavily taxed. I do like the idea of a flat income tax, say 5-7%? Better than what we have now. That way everybody pays the same rate, which is fair.
Income tax violates the 4th amendment. Why must we think the FEDS have right to tax our property?
USAFGopherMike
11-02-2012, 11:14
Income tax violates the 4th amendment. Why must we think the FEDS have right to tax our property?
Ok. I can agree with that.
Income tax violates the 4th amendment. Why must we think the FEDS have right to tax our property?
Also look at the bigger picture- the ideal behind the revolution was "No taxation without representation." With all the lobbies, special interest groups and corporate/NGA contributions, are "we the people" really being represented in our governing bodies?
Uberjager
11-04-2012, 12:05
If it passes, I could see our trading post getting more interesting...
If it passes, I could see our trading post getting more interesting...
Wanted: AR-15. have ak-47, purple kush, alaskan ice, agent orange and purple diesel to trade! no test drives unless you have ammo to trade. must bring chips and mountain dew.
Anyone going to address this? Question open to everyone. If Amendment 64 was for legal, locally produced NFA firearms, would you vote the same way?
Part of my reasoning to vote yes. it takes multiple states to stand up, tell the FED to piss off and get out of their business before the FED finally backs off (probably after threats of cutting FED funding).
After reading a lot of the responses, I definitely agree it should have been done a different way and not by a constitutional amendment, and the funds to be more clearly laid out how they would be spent.
As to the taxes, being that I have never and probably will never smoke weed, I am not concerned about it. The people that want to smoke are going to pay, grow their own etc. The same with drivers here. I get pissed every time at the pump and every time my registration comes in the mail or I buy a new vehicle...but I still pay it...not much choice.
brokenscout
11-06-2012, 13:37
Its time to vote yes...
I don't smoke but I voted yes.
hghclsswhitetrsh
11-06-2012, 13:55
No thanks. Drugs are bad mmmmkay.
no, we don't need another sin tax to support our schools
I'm for freedom not bullshit laws.
I voted yes for one reason. I personally could give a shit about if MJ is legal, taxed, or not. IF this passes, it sets up a showdown over a whole range of Federal bullshit regarding the 10th Amendment and abuse of the Commerce clause. This more than anything could result in landmark decisions that will limit or reduce the power of the Federal government.
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 14:05
I'm for freedom not bullshit laws.
Uh.... You read it's even worse than a law, right? [Bang]
You mean it's time to piss the feds off enough to come in and squash this? Why not just be happy with the level that the feds are currently allowing? Let the sleeping bear sleep and don't poke it with a stick. If this passes there is no way that the feds continue to let any of this go on.
OneGuy67
11-06-2012, 14:12
I voted no. It shouldn't be a poorly written state constitutional amendment. Its going to cause a large amount of litigation within the state before it even gets to the feds to litigate.
spqrzilla
11-06-2012, 14:16
I voted yes for one reason. I personally could give a shit about if MJ is legal, taxed, or not. IF this passes, it sets up a showdown over a whole range of Federal bullshit regarding the 10th Amendment and abuse of the Commerce clause. This more than anything could result in landmark decisions that will limit or reduce the power of the Federal government.
Nope, no chance of any constitutional decisions overturning Federal prohibition.
Hope to God it doesn't pass. The Feds will come in and put the bash on that shiz pronto. The last thing this state needs is a bunch more stupid people blazing even more than they already do. We are already a joke with all the MMJ crap.
I voted no. It shouldn't be a poorly written state constitutional amendment. Its going to cause a large amount of litigation within the state before it even gets to the feds to litigate.
THIS! Didn't we already discuss this?
Oh yes:
http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=65391 [Tooth]
JM Ver. 2.0
11-06-2012, 14:43
I voted no. I hate drugs. All drugs.
EDIT: I should specify.
I hate ILLEGAL drugs and the ABUSE of Legal Drugs.
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 14:46
[MOD] I merged the threads...
jackthewall81
11-06-2012, 15:01
I voted no. I hate drugs. All drugs.
I like Advil, beer, and multi vitamins. I am sure you have used a drug today.
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 15:03
I like Advil, beer, and multi vitamins. I am sure you have used a drug today.
Careful now. If you get general enough with your biology and chemistry, the simple act of breathing for the sake of O2 intake could be construed as ingestion of a drug. It just so happens we are all addicted to it.
JM Ver. 2.0
11-06-2012, 15:06
I like Advil, beer, and multi vitamins. I am sure you have used a drug today.
Indeed... I will edit my post...
ILLEGAL Drugs... Or the ABUSE of Legal Drugs... [Beer]
jackthewall81
11-06-2012, 15:06
Careful now. If you get general enough with your biology and chemistry, the simple act of breathing for the sake of O2 intake could be construed as ingestion of a drug. It just so happens we are all addicted to it.
[Beer]
There ya go. We need drugs to survive! Chemistry proves it!
jackthewall81
11-06-2012, 15:08
Indeed... I will edit my post...
ILLEGAL Drugs... Or the ABUSE of Legal Drugs... [Beer]
Beer was once illegal. Some bullshit politician could be against anti-inflammatory drugs and make Advil illegal. We need to regain our freedoms one by one.
battle_sight_zero
11-06-2012, 15:17
I voted NO. I have seen marijuana use go up dramatically by our 12 to 18 year olds since medical marijuana was allowed. Most of the weed the kids are smoking these days is medical marijuana and not from a drug cartel. I believe that marijuana is a terrible drug to be used by our youth in this age group since it does impact brain development. It's bull crap that nobody looked at the impact of marijuana use on our young people when they put this out and until they do its a no for me. If this passes today then I will be lobbying pretty Damm hard to insure some measures are put in place to make sure this stuff does not hurt our young people than it already does.
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 15:18
[Beer]
There ya go. We need drugs to survive! Chemistry proves it!
Yes, we are aerobic respirators. Thank god too; it would suck to urinate stuff like concentrated ethanol, acetate, butyrate, and lactic acid. Might burn a little.
I'll say this- and OneGuy hit the nail on the freaking head! I'm not against pot, I technically agree with the scheduling description, just not the scheduling itself, that legislation and LE go by- if it has "no medical value whatsoever" (pot, MDMA, hell even LSD have been proven to actually have some medicinal uses) then it needs to be illegal. The scheduling needs to be revamped or redesigned to include expert medical opinion from various kinds of medicine (not like now how doctors are split on MJ)... I am against HOW they're proposing to legalize MJ here... and I don't want to be the experimental state that "paves the way" for the rest of the country- let the pacific states start it off.
battle_sight_zero
11-06-2012, 15:31
and kids never used illegal substances before? you cant stop human nature. we dont need more laws legislating morality. This is why the Republican party is going down. We need LIBERTY!!![/QUOTE]
I have worked in safety in k-12 for 25 years now and see the impact of drugs on kids everyday. Medical marijuana increased the use of the drug dramatically. Marijuana does not help with the learning environment nor does help the kids developmentmenily or socially. All I see is some wasted lives as some of these kids toil it away and don't become productive members of society down the road. Sad to see some marijuana users now in their twenties homeless and laying about in front of a store panhandling or being arressted for crimes the committed to feed their drug habits started by marijuana use.
JM Ver. 2.0
11-06-2012, 15:34
Beer was once illegal. Some bullshit politician could be against anti-inflammatory drugs and make Advil illegal. We need to regain our freedoms one by one.
I don't drink. I'm also not the world's most prolific alcohol lover either. I'm not the one to argue freedoms with when it comes to the regulation of alcohol.
I voted no. I hate drugs. All drugs.
EDIT: I should specify.
I hate ILLEGAL drugs and the ABUSE of Legal Drugs.
What if they were all legal?
What is beer was illegal again?
Who is to say what should and should not be legal as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else in the mean time?
Uh.... You read it's even worse than a law, right? [Bang]
Why? Tom Tancredo endorses it as does Mike Rosen, and Lickenpooper and Mayor Handonmycock doesn't. Plus STATES RIGHTS! [Bang]
OneGuy67
11-06-2012, 18:27
Why? Tom Tancredo endorses it as does Mike Rosen, and Lickenpooper and Mayor Handonmycock doesn't. Plus STATES RIGHTS! [Bang]
Why? Read the thread again.
Goddamnit, how the hell did this end up back in GD?
Whoa!!! does freedom win? [ROFL2]
Pancho Villa
11-06-2012, 22:13
I voted yes. I don't really care. I don't smoke, have no interest in smoking. I don't drink, I don't smoke cigs either.
I just don't want my money going to pay to make sure you don't. I'm poor enough as is.
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 22:15
Goddamnit, how the hell did this end up back in GD?
Well, it followed all the damn 12 year old girl centric cartoon pony pictures and, BAM... Here it is.
Well, it followed all the damn 12 year old girl centric cartoon pony pictures and, BAM... Here it is.
[ROFL3][LOL][ROFL2]
well it passed... hmmm
who wants to invest in a new business?[Weight]
SuperiorDG
11-06-2012, 22:34
I'm selling all my guns and going to smoke pot until it's all over.[Flower]
Uberjager
11-06-2012, 22:35
Man, we all need to smoke weed and protest the system man...
Well, it followed all the damn 12 year old girl centric cartoon pony pictures and, BAM... Here it is.
http://i.imgur.com/iA6mu.gif
Pancho Villa
11-06-2012, 22:37
I guess we're all smokign weed and watching my little pony for the next 4 years.
I guess we're all smokign weed and watching my little pony for the next 4 years.
Good news! Season 3 starts Saturday [Flower]
Should be pretty interesting while under the influence...
65LwoIqUaeA
Pancho Villa
11-06-2012, 22:42
Good news! Season 3 starts Saturday [Flower]
Should be pretty interesting while under the influence...
65LwoIqUaeA
ROFL [ROFL1][ROFL1][ROFL1]
I want to be able to "favorite" this post.
Fucking ponies man ...talking fuckin ponies man!
So how long until I can start smoking legally?
I've got 3 joins in mah mouf righ now
hghclsswhitetrsh
11-06-2012, 23:09
So how long until I can start smoking legally?
Right now. Blaze the weed up in this mother... Ah hell.
Cylinder Head
11-06-2012, 23:11
So do I just show up at my local dispensary tomorrow? Because I'm gonna need it.
Jesus after tonight I may have to start. I cannot believe this damn country
I'll take care of your guns whilst yer gettin' baked.[Beer]
The DEA frowns on dopers with guns.[Tooth]
Uberjager
11-06-2012, 23:18
Let's push for a ballot measure next election for the legalization of AMPHETAMINE!!!
SA Friday
11-06-2012, 23:28
Let's push for a ballot measure next election for the legalization of AMPHETAMINE!!!
Uh.... amphetamine is still legal. It's just not sold openly any more. It's an over the counter drug, but is physically controlled by an age minimum criteria and put behind the pharmacy counter.
clublights
11-06-2012, 23:36
THink you hate hippies NOW??
wait to see how many move here in the next couple years.
colorider
11-06-2012, 23:37
Im buying stock in Frito Lay and Hostess. And buying a Taco Bell franchise.
See yall at the bank!!!
Im buying stock in Frito Lay and Hostess. And buying a Taco Bell franchise.
See yall at the bank!!!
Dont forget the Dorritos!!
Uh.... amphetamine is still legal. It's just not sold openly any more. It's an over the counter drug, but is physically controlled by an age minimum criteria and put behind the pharmacy counter.
Ephedrine, or more commonly pseudoephedrine is still legal (have to get from behind the counter). Amphetamines (commonly derived from ephedrine) are schedule II.
hghclsswhitetrsh
11-06-2012, 23:46
I don't think you should've deleted your post safriday. Very relevant and touching.
Washington state passed their weed law as well.
I don't think you should've deleted your post safriday. Very relevant and touching.
Yeah, I liked it. Stand up for what you know to be true.
armstrong001
11-07-2012, 11:18
Time for the Colorado Tourism Board to kick start their newest ad campaign. Why bother flying to Amsterdam and deal with the hassles of traveling between countries andhaving an awful exchange rate? Buy Amreican! Plan your pot filled trip to Colorado today!
brokenscout
11-07-2012, 11:23
Time for the Colorado Tourism Board to kick start their newest ad campaign. Why bother flying to Amsterdam and deal with the hassles of traveling between countries andhaving an awful exchange rate? Buy Amreican! Plan your pot filled trip to Colorado today!
It will be legal on the Fed level soon....Tax $$$$$$$$$
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if this has been explained and pm me if you'd prefer. I just see a glaring hole in this.
Now that whatever amount is legal why would anybody go to a dispensory to buy it and pay a tax on it?
Obviously weed is everywhere (except in my house) so how would this generate ANY tax at all? Who the hell is going to be happy paying a tax on something that is widely available without paying a tax on it? Why would someone not keep getting 'bootleg' dope like they have been all these years and avoid the tax? They can't stop drugs flowing in as it is, so now tax it and they think they can? Maybe a few honest medical users will use the dispensories but I can't believe that's anywhere near a majority of users. I just envision people throwing it in our faces now that it's legal and it generates little to nothing.
Enlighten me how this will generate millions in tax dollars.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if this has been explained and pm me if you'd prefer. I just see a glaring hole in this.
Now that whatever amount is legal why would anybody go to a dispensory to buy it and pay a tax on it?
Obviously weed is everywhere (except in my house) so how would this generate ANY tax at all? Who the hell is going to be happy paying a tax on something that is widely available without paying a tax on it? Why would someone not keep getting 'bootleg' dope like they have been all these years and avoid the tax? They can't stop drugs flowing in as it is, so now tax it and they think they can? Maybe a few honest medical users will use the dispensories but I can't believe that's anywhere near a majority of users. I just envision people throwing it in our faces now that it's legal and it generates little to nothing.
Enlighten me how this will generate millions in tax dollars.
Oh snap! I never thought of it this way! How does LE figure out if you're in possession of store bought weed or garage-grown weed? [Shake]
SA Friday
11-07-2012, 12:13
Ephedrine, or more commonly pseudoephedrine is still legal (have to get from behind the counter). Amphetamines (commonly derived from ephedrine) are schedule II.
Sure, OK. The difference in chemical structures of amphetamine and ephedrine hydrochloride comes down to two changes; a hydroxyl group is swapped out for a ethyl group and amine group is chlorinated. The changes are primarily done to change a drug from a semi-soluble to a salt which is completely soluble. The reason amphetamine was put on the schedule was because it's not practical to administer to the average patient in it's raw form, so it had very little pharmaceutical viability. Technically, Ephedrine and pseudoephedrin are different from amphetamine, but it's the difference between 'chartreuse' and 'sea green'. They are both green.
Pancho Villa
11-07-2012, 12:20
Oh snap! I never thought of it this way! How does LE figure out if you're in possession of store bought weed or garage-grown weed? [Shake]
Pretty simple, the infrastructure to get weed from point A to point B illegally costs money, protecting it requires goons, and the high-risk (relatively speaking compared to a counter store employee) of being a dealer requires a much larger cut of the profits.
The result is, weed from dispensaries, even now, is cheaper and of higher quality than that available on the street.
Running an illegal op isn't cheap. If you look into the economics of it you can see why there are 1000-10000% markups for most common street drugs.
Sure, OK. The difference in chemical structures of amphetamine and ephedrine hydrochloride comes down to two changes; a hydroxyl group is swapped out for a ethyl group and amine group is chlorinated. The changes are primarily done to change a drug from a semi-soluble to a salt which is completely soluble. The reason amphetamine was put on the schedule was because it's not practical to administer to the average patient in it's raw form, so it had very little pharmaceutical viability. Technically, Ephedrine and pseudoephedrin are different from amphetamine, but it's the difference between 'chartreuse' and 'sea green'. They are both green.
[Eek3]
Pretty simple, the infrastructure to get weed from point A to point B illegally costs money, protecting it requires goons, and the high-risk (relatively speaking compared to a counter store employee) of being a dealer requires a much larger cut of the profits.
The result is, weed from dispensaries, even now, is cheaper and of higher quality than that available on the street.
Running an illegal op isn't cheap. If you look into the economics of it you can see why there are 1000-10000% markups for most common street drugs.
High cost? Are you talking about cartel level? The dealers I know grow their own shit, have very little overhead, and if they play it smart, very little risk or competition.
If that really is the case, cheaper and better at a dispensory, then I can understand the argument. Not running in those circles, I do find that 'cheaper' part to be hard to accept. That said, I hope you're right.
Well thankfully this passed. Now we won't waste tax dollars on prohibition. I could care less what some pot smoker is doing. But the prohibition we have been living under has been doing verifiable harm to the nation. Time to quite wasting tax dollars and instead tax it and pay down the national debt (will not fix it all but its more revenue). Heck the current way the DEA funds itself makes it so if a DEA agent finds a field of skunk weed growing wild (the hemp version) they can cite that as a bust and get tax money for it. We waste countless resources on this when we could be better allocating that on things that really matter.
did holder ever respond to hikenpooper?
Byte Stryke
11-10-2012, 10:25
I see it as Personal rights come with Personal responsibility. If I have a firearm, I am responsible for it and what I do with it.
If someone wants to get baked, fine. but do not expect someone else to carry you.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if this has been explained and pm me if you'd prefer. I just see a glaring hole in this.
Now that whatever amount is legal why would anybody go to a dispensory to buy it and pay a tax on it?
Obviously weed is everywhere (except in my house) so how would this generate ANY tax at all? Who the hell is going to be happy paying a tax on something that is widely available without paying a tax on it? Why would someone not keep getting 'bootleg' dope like they have been all these years and avoid the tax? They can't stop drugs flowing in as it is, so now tax it and they think they can? Maybe a few honest medical users will use the dispensories but I can't believe that's anywhere near a majority of users. I just envision people throwing it in our faces now that it's legal and it generates little to nothing.
Enlighten me how this will generate millions in tax dollars.
I am allowed to brew my own beer, so why do I pay a visit to the liquor store every weekend? The same exact reason. I don't feel like investing the money for the equipment, the space in my house, the time it takes to learn all the techniques, the ingredients, etc, when I can just spend $8 at the liquor store and instantly have a product that is 100 times better than the disaster I would likely produce on my own.
did holder ever respond to hikenpooper?
Yes, Holder, Hickenlooper, and the Colorado Attorney General all had a conference call. They basically said that they came to no conclusions and will continue the talks.
I am sick of everyone preaching about tax dollars for this weed crap. People that smoke weed habitually are the people that BREAK THE LAW. They are also often the ones who are low-life, jobless, subsidized, and unwilling to work for anything in life. Lawfully letting them smoke weed is going to help them how? Is it going to suddenly make them get over it start getting their shit together? Hell no! These people also don't pay JACK SHIT for taxes as it is now, do you really think that Obama or the State is going to make them step and pay substantial taxes on their weed? C'mon now. That will be paid for the Americans that are working and make substantial income. About as un-American as it gets.
The government has been pouring a lot of unnecessary dollars into the "War on Drugs" but if you are under the illusion that they are now going to put the money into something productive and that this "revenue" will somehow make the deficit improve in any noticeable amount, it's time to get over that notion. The added amount of money that will go into regulating it, changing all of the Revised Statues, the new court proceedings, issuing new tickets for all the Police agencies in the state, etc. will be a huge cost burden on the state as well. Not to mention it makes our state look like a joke to the rest of the country.
I am sick of everyone preaching about tax dollars for this weed crap. People that smoke weed habitually are the people that BREAK THE LAW. They are also often the ones who are low-life, jobless, subsidized, and unwilling to work for anything in life. Lawfully letting them smoke weed is going to help them how? Is it going to suddenly make them get over it start getting their shit together? Hell no! These people also don't pay JACK SHIT for taxes as it is now, do you really think that Obama or the State is going to make them step and pay substantial taxes on their weed? C'mon now. That will be paid for the Americans that are working and make substantial income. About as un-American as it gets.
The people you are describing here also abuse other things like alcohol, gambling, and even video games. The people you describe are the way they are for reasons other than that weed exists or is legal or illegal.
The government has been pouring a lot of unnecessary dollars into the "War on Drugs" but if you are under the illusion that they are now going to put the money into something productive and that this "revenue" will somehow make the deficit improve in any noticeable amount, it's time to get over that notion. The added amount of money that will go into regulating it, changing all of the Revised Statues, the new court proceedings, issuing new tickets for all the Police agencies in the state, etc. will be a huge cost burden on the state as well. Not to mention it makes our state look like a joke to the rest of the country.
Many of us have already acknowledged that the concept of legalizing weed under the guise that it will be good for taxes is a total bullshit idea.
soldier-of-the-apocalypse
11-10-2012, 13:04
I am sick of everyone preaching about tax dollars for this weed crap. People that smoke weed habitually are the people that BREAK THE LAW. They are also often the ones who are low-life, jobless, subsidized, and unwilling to work for anything in life. Lawfully letting them smoke weed is going to help them how? Is it going to suddenly make them get over it start getting their shit together? Hell no! These people also don't pay JACK SHIT for taxes as it is now, do you really think that Obama or the State is going to make them step and pay substantial taxes on their weed? C'mon now. That will be paid for the Americans that are working and make substantial income. About as un-American as it gets.
The government has been pouring a lot of unnecessary dollars into the "War on Drugs" but if you are under the illusion that they are now going to put the money into something productive and that this "revenue" will somehow make the deficit improve in any noticeable amount, it's time to get over that notion. The added amount of money that will go into regulating it, changing all of the Revised Statues, the new court proceedings, issuing new tickets for all the Police agencies in the state, etc. will be a huge cost burden on the state as well. Not to mention it makes our state look like a joke to the rest of the country.
I think you might be suprised to see the people who smoke alot of weed and keep it to them selves. You cant just lump everyone in the same catigory, it sounds verry ignorant. As for you second statement I agree, the goverment is verry good at wasting our money on all levels and that will not change until the american people are willing to do something about it. I just dont see how keeping marijuana illeagal will change that, your argument is idiotic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.